By now, everyone pretty much knows where they stand on what they think should happen at Tuesday’s Constitutional Convention (which David is planning to live-blog starting at 2 pm). For the record, the three of us believe firmly that:
- The legislature should do what Article 48 has always required, and what the SJC recently unanimously confirmed in no uncertain terms — it should “vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007.” There are precisely two initiative amendments pending: the anti-marriage amendment, and the health care amendment. They should take an up-or-down vote on both of them.
- The legislature should vote NO on the anti-marriage amendment. The SJC got it right in Goodridge: equal treatment under the law means that the right to receive a marriage license from the state cannot be restricted to couples that consist of one man and one woman. Undoing the Goodridge decision would be a terrible step backward: it would write targeted discrimination against a minority group into our Constitution; it would deny gay people a right that straight people have taken for granted for many, many years; it would strike a blow against the worthy institution of marriage by reducing the number of people who can enter into this kind of stable, loving relationship; and it would pointlessly deny Massachusetts the economic benefits it reaps as a state that welcomes everyone to marry and live here. The amendment is an awful idea, and it thoroughly deserves the stake through its cold, shriveled heart that a vote of rejection would deliver.
The mantra of “Let the People Vote,” in this context, should carry no weight whatsoever. Article 48 is designed to filter out those initiative proposals that are so extreme that they can’t even garner the support of one-fourth of two consecutive state legislatures. The legislature’s role is not simply to rubber-stamp any initiative petition that comes along. Rather, Article 48 gives the legislature a crucial gate-keeper role to play, and they should play it. In an editorial published around the time of the last ConCon, the Herald got it exactly right: “If it can’t get that number on an up or down vote then surely it is not worthy of further consideration.” So if a legislator votes to advance the amendment to the next session because she believes the amendment is a good idea, we can disagree on the merits, but we can understand the rationale behind the vote. But any legislator who votes to advance the amendment even though she hopes it fails at the ballot is abdicating the duty assigned to her by the Constitution.
We are well aware (yes, well aware) that many who frequent this site don’t agree with us on the first point. We are also aware that, unless something dramatic and unexpected happens, the anti-marriage amendment probably will get 50 votes and will advance to the 2007-08 session. We therefore promise you this: if that happens, we will work as hard as we can to persuade the new legislature to do the right thing and reject the amendment.
We believe that can and will happen. Anti-marriage activists Travis, Goguen, Parente, and maybe others will be gone. And without them beating the drum, perhaps a few “yes” votes will finally see that we’ve had gay marriage for a few years now, and yet our society appears not to have collapsed. Quite the opposite, in fact — gay marriage encourages stable relationships, enhances the welfare of children being raised by gay parents, and generally strengthens the institution of marriage, as well as being the right thing on civil/human rights grounds. For those reasons, among others, this is not a “liberal” vs. “conservative” issue. Conservative pundit David Brooks stated it well back in 2003:
The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
The more we can all make the “yes” votes, of whatever ideological stripe, aware that married gay people are their friends, neighbors, and constituents, and that all these married gay people want is what married straight people want — to live their lives together, do their jobs, and raise their kids (all of which, by the way, is very good for the economy), the greater our chances of finding the votes we need. We think that’s eminently achievable.
“We therefore promise you this: if that happens, we will work as hard as we can to persuade the new legislature to do the right thing and reject the amendment.”….BMG
<
p>
No offense to you the editors of this fine blog, but I rather see the Legislature kill this terrible amendment by whatever means necessary. If that means agjourning, recessing or even pulling the fire alarm thats what they should do.
<
p>
The Votes are not there to win this year and will not be there next year. Kill it now!
That sentiment when applied to the creation of law places you in some very nasty company. Think of leaders who in your own opinion are the worst tyrants in history, and then consider whether they operated using that phrase as a guide.
on your part. The worst tyrants in history generally operated completely within the form of the law. Many liberals, I suspect, would have deplored their acts over pino grigio while reluctantly urging their victims to obey the law.
<
p>
Don’t invoke a historical analogy unless you’re willing to face the consequences.
<
p>
You are quite mistaken. The word tyrant itself, at least in the Greek, referred to someone who illegally seized power but was able to keep it because of the support of different factions. That, however was then and this is now. And as we use the word you remain egregiously mistaken.
<
p>
The worst tyrants in history generally operated with as thick a veneer of legitimacy as they could muster: which layer became thinner and thinner and indeed less relevant as they assumed more power. This sometimes meant working within the form of the law, most often in the early stages of gaining power, but more often meant changing the form of the law to suit their whims: in fact, that’s ALWAYS what tyranny becomes; a subversion of the law to the tyrants rule.
<
p>
As for your rather snide aside: ‘liberals would have deplored their acts over pino grigio while reluctantly urging their victims to obey the law’, I pity you. If this is indeed how you think, you are sadly impoverished in your knowledge of history. It is worth noting that in 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin while living in Maine (A state created, in the then recent past, out of Massachusetts by a compromise over slavery) By her own words, the book derived from an awakening sense of injustice born of clerical and social support (that was decidedly conservative) for the fugitive slave act of 1850. She may not have tried the direct action of overturning the law (though Massachusetts did, in 1855, pass a ‘personal freedom’ law in direct opposition to the federal fugitive slave act) she took pen to paper and forced people to see how very bad things were. Even Abraham Lincoln credits her as a direct influence on the conduct of the North and South in the period leading up to and including the civil war. You ought, (if you are at all concerned with righteousness and justice rather than snide attacks) read Thoreau. I urge you to read his essay entitled “Slavery in Massachusetts.” If you have read it, read it again because you missed a great something the first time.
<
p>
Every move from bad law to justice and righteousness started in this way: with a liberal who eschewed his or her wine to take up the cause. Every time. Throughout all time.
also ate food and walked.
Ignoring the constitution in order to wield power is despicable. That it is done in the name of “good” is no excuse — not for the legislators who on this matter confuse cowardice and courage and not for the those who urge the use of “any means necessary”. I would have been disappointed had the legislature voted to move the amendment forward (and proudly voted against the initiative at the ballot), but that disappointment pales in comparison to what I think about their current neglect of duty and abuse of power.
<
p>
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. — James Madison
<
p>
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. — Louis Brandeis
<
p>
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. — Louis Brandeis
here, here
No vote should be taken. The violence that trans/queer and youth will face due to the uptake in anti-gay campaigning by the right wing and the diversion of the attention of the gay community will not be fun to watch.
that the fight will be ugly, and I don’t look forward to it, but we don’t let thugs run our Commonwealth.
<
p>
We didn’t let the KKK dictate when and how the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s would be voted on and we didn’t let the bigots who threw rocks at school buses derail busing in the 1970s. Likewise, we shouldn’t let the very, very small percentage of those who oppose gay marriage and who may become violent decide if we vote on this amendment.
<
p>
There is no excuse for violence, and I will oppose it wherever I see it, but as a society we cannot let ourselves be bullied.
we shouldn’t let the very, very small percentage of those who oppose gay marriage and who may become violent decide if we vote on this amendment.
<
p>
The Supreme Judical Court said the legisltors are obliged to vote. It did not tell them which way to vote. I will willingly be bullied by the LAW, regardless of my own opinion about same-sex marriage. Will you?
I support traffic laws. So what if the police only seem to discover them when it’s Black people driving? Everyone should respect the law.
<
p>
If I thought the legislature was going to retain its good-government conscience on this process for one minute beyond the vote on adjouring and extend the same consideration to amendments that affect everyone or the budget and not just an unpopular minority, I’d be with you. But we all know they will continue to send awkward amendments to study committees or early-adjournment doom in the future as soon as the media attention is off.
<
p>
Gay marriage is like driving while Black. Most people don’t care about the rights involved, so they support the process being honored in this one case. Next year, the year after, and in 2010, you’ll be dutifully covering the legislature as it shuts down debate on any number of issues and amendments. And guess what, you’ll be the only ones.
Who can even name the other five petition amendments the Legislature has let die without a vote in the past?
<
p>
Amazing how such tender concern for the Constitution appears only when gays are the target.
<
p>
Just so you know, we’ve been having this same debate about the healthcare amendment for quite some time. In fact, it’s my concern about future petition initiatives that underlies my support for putting this matter to a vote.
<
p>
The lynch-pin philosophy that underlies the struggle against arbitrary enforcement of the law – even for a higher moral purpose – is “but, what happens next time?”
<
p>
What happens when the next voter petition seeks to increase civil rights, rather than hinder them? What happens when the next voter petition seeks to further a lofty liberal goal, rather than a homophobic one? Would you cry foul when the legislature declines to consider your initiative, even though you did everything you were supposed to do on your end?
<
p>
I think you would.
<
p>
Dan Kennedy calls that being a process liberal. I call it encouraging my representative to adhere to their oath of office and obey the rule of law.
<
p>
…but what makes you believe that without Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and Fox News behind you, the legislature is going to observe your wish for good government when that amendment comes up for a vote in 2009 or 2010? There is no enforcement mechanism beyond public attention and the consciences of good-government legislators. That’s enough to get an anti-gay amendment across the threshold, but it will not suffice when another amendment arises that is hated by the legislative powers-that-be and is ignored by most people in the state.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but I sense that: a.) You think I support the ballot initiative simply because I think it should be voted on, and b.) your cyncicism is dictating your position here.
<
p>
I don’t think there’s room for that kind of cycnicism when it comes to serious discussion about how our system of government should work. You can’t pass a law saying, “The legislature shall take action on a citizen petition – except when we think it’s not going to work out the way we want it because we don’t trust the process.”
a) is dead wrong. I recognize that everyone arguing from your position is doing so in good faith, and (here, at least) not because of any support for it or animus toward gays. My point about Mitt Romney and FoxNews is that they can marshal the public attention needed to make the legislature follow the constitution, but you will rarely get that firepower on your side. Ask anyone who fought the lonely fight for Clean Elections or against Tom Finneran’s abuses for years, who only “won” when the perjury case too him out of action.
<
p>
I may be cynical, but I am also right about how this will play out in the future, and I can’t afford to delude myself and convince myself everything will be ok when the evidence and human nature tell me the opposite. Especially when I will be the one who will bear all the cost of this vote and there will be no long-term gain.
<
p>
What I am saying is that a vote not to adjourn is a successful battle for liberals, but not a win in the war. There is no constitutional enforcement that makes the legislature vote. All that makes them vote is public attention and their consciences.
<
p>
We KNOW that public attention is variable, and if you put your faith in their consciences, you should know what the outcome will be.
<
p>
If you want a right to initative and amendment, you need to put something in the Constitution that has some force to it. Otherwise, all we will have is selective enforcement on issues where there is public attention, which usually means public animus toward a scapegoat. And “Health Care for All” and other initiatives will continue to die in committee, unmourned by most.
You seem to think that if the legislature bites and bullet and entertains putting discrimination into the constitution today, a binding precedent will arise which will guarantee all future petitions to be voted on. That’s simply not true. There are precedents going both ways, and it’s within the absolute discretion of a future ConCon to duck a vote on an initiative petition even if gays are thrown under the bus today. This is a “political question” where no controlling precedent arises. I would argue that there should be a narrow exception to the principles the SJC articulated in its dicta, legislatively carved out, that discriminatory consitutional amendments do not warrant a vote. But the legislature, now and in the future, can do whatever they want.
The “requirements” of article 48 were only miraculously discovered this year, when they were needed to attack gay people and their children. Below is a nice, long list of other petition amendments that died a quiet death with no hue and cry over the course of the twentieth century.
<
p>
But I’m sure you can link to your documented outrage over each of these amendments, no? And surely you voted for Kerry Healey, who pledged to heed the will of the voters on the income tax, no? And of course, you publicly attacked the SJC for publishing dicta on a case over which it had no jurisdiction, no?
<
p>
If not, then your selective outrage is most curious indeed.
Steve –
<
p>
I’ve read your posts today. I find you ill informed and more than a little militant. You’re also a Johnny-come-lately on these boards, which I don’t usually mind – the more the merrier – but accusing me of being a Healey voter is a little over-the-top.
<
p>
Where was my outrage on the previous ballot initiaitives? Hmmmmmm…let’s see, in was in grammar school in the early 80s, so I’ll call my mom for you and ask her if she can remember whether I was “outraged” at the time that Prop 2.5 was tabled. I’m sure she’ll say I was outraged about something, but mostly because I didn’t get that new Transformer.
<
p>
I’ve said it before on these boards, and I’ll be happy to say it again now: Ballot initiatives are a bad idea. We have a system of checks and balances in this country, which provide that a majority rules – but only to a point. Certain rights are absolute. The problem with a ballot initiative, IMHO, is that we’re saying “Certain rights are absolute – unless you collect enough signatures.” So, no, I’m not a supporter of the tax rollback. And I would like to see Art 48 reformed.
<
p>
However, the tax rollback was at least given an up or down vote by the legislature, which is all I’m advocating. That’s ALL I’m advocating. Our representatives took an oath of office to support the constitution and laws of Massachusetts. They don’t get to choose which laws they’ll support. They must, and will, vote.
…she posted them a while back, and it was helpful. David – can you post a link to that list?
link
<
p>
and you can see the pattern of self-serving behavior as well.
Self-serving “representatives.”
It’s not enough to rhetorically oppose hate crimes when one’s position leads ineluctably to their increase in frequency. The Mittster has set the fight against hate crimes back so far we don’t even have accurate statistics with which to gauge the problem. Although the Governor’s Task Force on Hate Crimes needs to be revived regardless, it becomes that much more critical if this bruising debate is perpetuated. I ask, will our “process liberal” friends join with the GLBT folks who will bear the brunt of their devotion to conscience to insist that Deval ramp up the hate crimes fighting apparatus after the long, dark night of the Romney years? If the government doesn’t protect GLBT folks adequately, then bullies will drive the debate by default.
I see your point, and technically the legislature appears to be bound by Article 48. But as Americans, it is more important that our legislative representatives stand up for the Constitution and the values of our democracy by preventing any possibility of a law being passed that promotes discrimination. That American value of equal rights trumps Article 48 and will save us from not only a miserable, divisive, hate-filled campaign, but wasting taxpayers money.
<
p>
I’ve made this point before, most recently here, and I paraphrase
<
p>
There is something essentially un-American about a vote that could end up allowing the general public to vote for discrimination. How many times do we have to go through the same exact fight? Haven’t we learned through the suffragette and civil rights movements that discrimination based on DNA is against everything we stand for?
Didn’t we SOLVE those problems by legislative votes and plebiscite?
And it proves my original query–how often do we have to fight the same fight? Fans of discrimination seem to think each time that their particular form of hate deserves to be elevated to a special status exempt from our democracy’s basic anti-discrimination values and laws.
<
p>
All the same (false) arguments are used for each issue from anti-women’s rights to anti-civil rights to anti-gay rights: biology, destiny, moral breakdown of culture, etc. etc. etc. All arguments are based in fear at best, and hatred at worst. In between are the so-called “values” arguments that use religious beliefs as facts and are baseless from the get-go, because the Constitution does not allow religion to dictate law.
<
p>
This cycle of seemingly endless demands to enact discrimination is Santayana-esque in scope: The [fill in the blank] haters don’t seem to (or want to) remember the past, and they are bent on repeating the same mistaken demand over and over again–each time expecting a different result. Hmmm, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, isn’t that Einstein’s definition of insanity?
…much of the Civil Rights process was fought and won in the courts without the direct assistance of legislation or in advance of positive legislation that confirmed court decisions and in some cases (like the creation of the 14th Amendment) when legislative remedies were created procedural tactics were employed to ensure their passage. While women’s suffrage was enacted by Constitutional Amendment, many of the gains of the broader women’s movement have been slugged out in the courts without legislative or popular intervention. And in all of this, the public at large was almost wholly prevented from participating directly in the process. Further, comparing a Constitutional Amendment to repeal court granted civil rights to anything that has come before is inaccurate. This situation is novel and deserves to be treated as such.
and vote against the petition. The SJC has spoken. The Massachusettts Constitution requires that the legislature vote on the petition. If the legislature does not vote, then the members are ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law. That would be un-American. It is the rule of law which makes our democracy work.
<
p>
Yes, the petition should be rejected by the legislature. It is discriminatory. If the petition is allowed to move forward to the next session, it probably will be a difficult fight, but one that is winnable. The consequences to our democracy, however, will be worse if the rule of law is ignored in order to avoid the fight.
It refused to enter a declaratory judgment. Statements of a court that are not in support of a judgment are mere dicta and are neither binding nor controlling as precedent. If the court felt it did not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment, the standards of judicial process actually required the court to punt the case entirely.
<
p>
But hey, who cares about this process stuff unless it damages gay people?
I’m sure David is familiar with the “political question” doctrine, under which the authority to say what Article 48 means in this context rests with the General Court, not the Supreme Judicial Court. The SJC should have said nothing on Article 48 after concluding they had no authority. The SJC illustrated how appealling double standards tend to be when the rights of gays are concerned. Conservatives are relentless in upholding the political question doctrine when it keeps the courts out of their way, but liberals seem to have lost the concept in their enthusiasm for the SJC’s ultra vires dicta.
I am indeed familiar with the doctrine. The problem, of course, is that the courts in the first instance are the ones who decide what is a “political question” and what isn’t. In this case, as we know, the SJC chose not to conclude that the meaning of Article 48 was a political question that should in the final analysis be decided by the legislature. You may disagree with that decision, but there isn’t really any recourse from it. And, for what it’s worth, I think there’s a powerful argument to be made that, since Article 48 is designed to give “the people” an end-run around the legislature (that is, after all, its purpose), giving the legislature the final say on its meaning might be a bad idea.
To support a conclusion that the “political question” doctrine is inapplicable, the Court would have to have held the Mittster’s lawsuit presented a justiciable controversy. They did not so hold. They gave advice on their interpretation of Art. 48, but did not find a justiciable controversy. If the Mittster wanted a valid advisory opinion, why didn’t he simply request one? But the proper response in that case would have been for the court to request to be discharged from answering the question because again it is not justiciable. Why are dicta being elevated to the level of a holding?
<
p>
If the constitution meant to give the people an end run around the legislature, then why give the legislature a role at all in amending the constitution? That argument proves too much.
The purpose here was to let the people do an “end-around”, but also give the legislature, through the con-con, the ability with a 3/4+ vote, twice, to stop an amendment in process.
<
p>
Cutting that down to a majority changes the meaning of the article, and the intent.
<
p>
This is not just about gays, and I wish people would see that.
<
p>
Its about term limits, right to bear arms, legislative/judicial pay, interstate commerce (highway taxes), annual vs biannual sessions, graduated income taxes, felon voting, statistical vs actual census, death penalty, tax limits.. anything that did or might go through as a constitutional amendment via intiative petition.
<
p>
Every issue that has come up and could come up should go through the process.. especially if “the people” put their resources into trying to get something through despite the legislature.
<
p>
The original framers of the article assumed that the legislature would have some sort of integrity and not play these adjournment games.
<
p>
The danger is to us all, not just the one minority with which it is now involved.
The SJC recommended the legislature hold up-or-down votes, but also said it didn’t have the authority to order the vote.
Not really. The SJC said (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>
They also said that they can’t force the lege to do anything. But that doesn’t mean it’s just a “recommendation.”
They did not have the authority to issue a declaratory judgment or issue a write of mandamus. This statement is true whether or not the legislature has any obligation to act. THEREFORE, their comments about the legislature’s duty are mere dicta and do not even rise to the level of “recommendation.” They are irrelevant.
<
p>
This is the actual law. This is the actual process. However, since it doesn’t break up gay families, it’s probably not very interesting to people, and the uninformed opinions of laymen can be substituted instead.
I stand corrected.
<
p>
But still, the court did say that it could not force the legislature to vote, which was my main point.
Does anyone have an idea how many “yes” votes there are on the anti-gay-marriage amendment? How about how many are still in the legislature? If the outgoing legislature had maybe 89 “yes” votes (based on the votes against adjournment), how sure can you be that the new one will have less than 50? I understand that you would like to be able to have the vote and have it come out your way, but what is your position on having the vote if it comes out (as seems more likely) the other way?
the estimate of “yes” votes in the current lege is about 55. Not sure how solid that is. Anyway, we may find out tomorrow – it’s not significantly more than that. We know that at least 3 of those votes are leaving. Do you really believe that there aren’t 3 more than are persuadable? I don’t.
David, who the heck are your sources? My reporters at Bay Windows have been working this issue for well over a year now and there is not a single person involved in head counts who claims the yes side is as low as 55. You only get near 55 under the absolute Best Case Scenario.
Susan Ryan-Vollmar
editor of Bay Windows
the only number I’ve ever heard is 55, which will be no more than 52 after tomorrow: can you explain more?
Well of course I disagree with The Editors on item 1, but I suppose that at least we can’t call you flipfloppers.
<
p>
If Item 1 goes your way and the rest goes the way none of us wish, your brains and cooperation will be invaluable in the years to come. I hope in either case that BMGer dedication to LGBT equality won’t stop at state borders. We need to let national candidates know that ongoing progress and/or dedication to equality is required, not merely a nicety. Why? MA marriages are worthless beyond MA borders. Gay people can still be fired or refused housing in many states just for the fact of being gay. We’re discharging competent soldiers because they’re gay, etc. Equality must be made to happen at a national level.
<
p>
I look forward to working together on these and other issues in the future.
As a conservative I’m delighted to agree with your first bullet point, and also your observation about the irrelevance of the “let the people vote” mantra. Your stand on this question is highly principled and emminently Liberal in the best tradition of the word.
<
p>
Your stand is also in stark contrast to that taken by many in the Legislature and many activists/lobbyists.
<
p>
IMHO bringing democratic constitutional processes to bear on this question could be helpful in resolving it. Even our craven Reps could serve us in this question if both left and right insisted that they do their duty and TAKE votes on measures, rather than just obfuscate and hide.
…that such principles didn’t govern the 2000 Presidential election, when Republicans in power decided to set process aside and do what they could get away with.
<
p>
If I were completely shut out of elected office, I’d be praising my opponents’ morality to the skies, as well. Fat lot of good it did us when Katharine Harris shut down the counting process and a Republican congressional rent-a-mob bullied Miami-Dade vote counters into stopping.
…disagreeing with the legislative procedural tactics that have been employed to date, but to equate that with hidden obfuscation is unfair and inaccurate. The legislators who voted to recess acted deliberately and openly in what I’m sure they felt was in keeping with their duties as they understood them. Further, until 12:00 am when the convention comes to a close their choice up to this point not to vote would not even been technically out of step with Article 48, and then only if ulitmately no vote is taken.
that you would enable the gay-haters to take my rights away by putting this on the ballot.
<
p>
In my opinion, civil rights should never, ever be a subject for a referendum…period. I support whatever legislative maneuvers it takes to keep this divisive issue off the ballot.
<
p>
You are well aware that if this issue is put to a vote today, the votes are there to put it on the ballot. And then we are faced with another two years of this hateful, divisive, mean-spirited debate. Maybe this isn’t a big deal to the three of you, but as a gay man, it is a big deal to me.
<
p>
And I am sure that Mitt Romney will be pleased that folks like you will be helping him leave office with a huge victory.
<
p>
I’m very disappointed.
<
p>
Good point. It is not difficult to construct a scenario in which Romney becomes President in 2008. This would be due in large part to primary victories resulting from his lawsuit eventuating in the overturn of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Many people will blame “the gays” for giving him the issue that took him to the White House because of our selfishness and bad timing. (Because it’s always bad timing; November 2003 was only 5 years before the Presidential election.)
If anyone thinks that this issue, and any subsequent ballot question on this issue, simply go away if the Lege votes to adjourn tonight then you haven’t been paying attention for the last 30 years.
…You haven’t been paying attention for the last two years, during which anti-equality lawmakers have been consistently replaced with pro-equality lawmakers and others who simply do want to move on. Carl Sciortino was one case, but he was atypical in the sense it was actually a motivating factor for retiring Vinny Ciampa. Parente was retired by a pro-equality lawmaker and it wasn’t an issue in the primary. Brian Golden was replaced by someone with the type of neighborhood boy persona that once would have taken for granted indifference or hostility to gays, but didn’t, because Brian Moran opposes the amendment. Goguen’s and Travis’s replacements will also vote no on the amendment, but they’re coming into office simply because those two are old and out of power and have handed over the reins. Shirley Gomes was replaced by a lesbian. Have ANY seats moved in the other direction? Has this been a motivating issue to unseat any representative for supporting marriage equality?
<
p>
Backlash is always a real threat but as far as the composition and mood of the legislature goes, particularly in primary elections, it hasn’t so much as whimpered.
In 2002, a similar question was struck down when the Legislature voted to adjourn without taking a vote. In 2004, the Con Con again addressed the issue, this time two separate questions that originated with Legislators. Now here we are again, as the Con Con again considers the question.
<
p>
Twenty-eight states have voted on this issue and I’m sorry to disappoint you, but it’s not going away at midnight tonight.
<
p>
You can swap out a few nay votes here and there, but the debate itself lives on. To paraphrase Neil Diamond “Well except for the names and a few other changes…the story’s the same one.” (I can’t believe I just cited Neil Diamond in a BMG discussion!)
I’m not missing the point. What has happened since then is that marriage became a reality in May 2004, elections have been held in which legislators who supported marriage equality easily survived, and people are ready to move on. Other states are different, but other states a) aren’t as Democratic as we are and b) don’t have gay marriage as a fait accompli of many years.
<
p>
Some other facts for your timeline: Support for a legislature-initiatied amendment, so close to passage in 2004, crashed. Now it’s dead. Support for the last gasp, the voter-initiated amendment continues to decline toward the 50-vote threshold. Supporters of the amendment have retired or left, others who supported the legislative amendment (Rogers, Jones) have changed their minds. A governor who whipped his caucus in the House to unified support for the amendment is moving on.
<
p>
The trends are all moving in one direction in Massachusetts.
No condescension intended.
As we have become painfully aware over the past decade or so, the Republicans and Democrats play by two sets of rules. The Democrats tend to naval gaze, and take a “principled” approach. The Republicans are tough, play to “win,” with the end justifying the means.
<
p>
Now this is not a Republican vs. Democrats issue per se, but the alignment is similar, with the usual cast of characters.
<
p>
Does anyone, for a moment, believe that if the roles were reversed (say, the year is 2000, and pro gay supporters are trying to pass a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage), that the opposing side would have any moral qualms whatsoever about blocking a vote by any means necessary?
<
p>
The owners of this blog are taking the customary “principled” approach to this issue. It is, however, a losing approach.
<
p>
Haven’t we learned anything?
There is a structural asymmetry here. Conservatives tend to feel that they are defending against evil and process is a tool to be used (or not) in defending against evil. We progressives tend to be much more empathetic. We want everything to be fair. As a consequence, Republicans tend to regard partisanship positively: they see no reason to give equal time to things that are bad, wrong, or deleterious. A significant part of the Democratic electoral base hates partisanship. This means we enter many fights with a structural disadvantage.
KBusch, please do not presume to speak for all progressives. Your approach may be shared by some progressives, but certainly not all. Perhaps not even the majority. It does not define or necessarily typify “progressive”.
(1) I wrote “we progressives tend…”. That clearly does not apply to all progressives. Empathy is certainly a much more central progressive value than it is a conservative one. I’d be happy to back that up.
<
p>
Or are you saying you’re not empathetic? I’ll be more careful around you. 🙂
<
p>
(2) I have been arguing in lots of comments that progressives really need to overcome the tendency I’m pointing out. So I’m not sure even what the heck you think I think or how even what your objection is.
<
p>
Perhaps you are still mad at me over the discussion about Edwards a month ago.
You’re right, I read and typed too quickly. I actually agree with you. My appologies and please give me a moment while I go off and feel stupid.
<
p>
Regarding Edwards last month – no grudges whatsoever, just differences of opinion.
Apt.
<
p>
Fortunately, there is any easy solution to your structural asymmetry: Hold Democratic ideals; employ select Republican tactics. This is pretty much what you are seeing in the comments here–maybe progressives are starting to get it?
The Democrats have missed many opportunities to shine the light on Republican hypocrisy and misdeeds. I hope they’ve learned their lesson.
I’d like to point you to a couple of commentaries on Media Nation on why the Legislature should kill the anti-gay-marriage amendment by any means necessary, whether it be by staying home, approving another recess or whatever.
<
p>
The first, by Bay Windows editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar, makes the case for civil disobedience. Read it here.
<
p>
The second, which I wrote, asks whether process liberals like our friends at Blue Mass Group would be quite so insistent on a legislative vote if the amendment called for, say, the reinstitution of slavery. Read it here.
On the second question, because it’s the easy one: yes, absolutely. I have no doubt that such an amendment would garner exactly zero votes in the legislature — surely you don’t disagree with that. Isn’t that a better way of killing such an amendment than dodging a vote, thereby violating their oaths of office (according to the SJC) and thus ceding a certain degree of high ground to the wackos who proposed it in the first place? (Also, and somewhat irrelevantly to this particular debate, that amendment would of course be promptly struck down as inconsistent with the US Constitution.)
<
p>
On the first question, this is an interesting argument that I hope we can tease out at greater length sometime. Before reading Susan’s post, I had already reread Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail in the course of writing this comment. The passage of interest here is this one:
<
p>
<
p>
Dr. King, of course, was talking about laws enforcing racial segregation — such laws are unjust, he said, and he therefore advocated breaking them and accepting the consequences, including jail time. However, he expressly rejected the idea of “evading or defying the law,” which he saw as “lead[ing] to anarchy.” What’s unclear to me is how, exactly, legislators’ defiance of their oath to uphold the Constitution falls into the former category of action rather than the latter. As has been pointed out by others, there’s a case to be made that legislators should resign rather than vote to adjourn — that looks a lot more like “accept[ing] the penalty,” as Dr. King discussed.
<
p>
So here’s my question for you, Dan et al.: would you advocate legislators who wish to avoid a vote resigning their office before 2 pm today (and, presumably, also not serving in the 07-08 session)? That, it seems to me, is much closer to what Dr. King was talking about.
If David had bothered to read my post before putting up his response (above), he would have seen that I had anticipated his arguments. Therefore, I’m going to repost it here so that BMG readers can see for themselves. DK
<
p>
<
p>
Further thoughts on Article 48
<
p>
With the Legislature scheduled today, once again, to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would outlaw same-sex marriage, I want to develop a bit more fully an argument I offered over the weekend in the comments section.
<
p>
Legislators face a difficult dilemma. Under the terms of Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, they must vote on a citizen petition that would ban gay marriage. Just 50 of the 200 legislators – 25 percent – need to vote “yes” for the amendment to move on to the next session of the Legislature. If it gets 25 percent again, the amendment would go on the 2008 ballot, and would become part of the constitution if it received a simple majority.
<
p>
The trouble is that though most legislators oppose the anti-marriage amendment, enough support it that the 25 percent hurdle can be easily met. That’s why the Legislature voted to go into recess rather than hold a vote back in November. But using such parliamentary tactics became more difficult last week when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature must hold an up-or-down vote on the merits of the amendment itself, even though the court acknowledged there is no way to enforce its ruling.
<
p>
The court’s decision naturally provided a boost to the anti-marriage crowd. But it also bolstered the position of process liberals like the bloggers at Blue Mass Group, who believe the right thing to do is for legislators simply to vote down the amendment, thereby preventing its appearance on the 2008 ballot. A nice thought, but, as Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, tells the Boston Globe, there’s no way the pro-marriage majority can muster the 75 percent it would need to defeat the amendment.
<
p>
Bay Windows editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar, writing for Media Nation, and the Outraged Liberal, in a post on his own blog, have called for the Legislature to defeat the amendment by any means necessary – that is, to defy the Supreme Judicial Court and kill the marriage ban by staying home or by voting for another recess. I agree. And though I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, I hope that by the time you finish reading this, you’ll at least have a better understanding of what the real issues are.
<
p>
I’m not a fan of argument by analogy. Often, it’s the next-to-last refuge of a scoundrel. (Here is the last.) But in this case I think it may be useful to offer a comparison to slavery.
<
p>
Let’s say a group of citizens began a petition drive to enslave all Massachusetts residents of African ancestry. Let’s say they got more than enough signatures to place the matter before the Legislature. Now, many analogies fall apart for lack of logic, but I think this holds up pretty well. As with the anti-gay-marriage amendment, a slavery amendment would subject the rights of a minority group to the whims of the majority, and take away existing rights. And the analogy also works because the whole point of a constitutional amendment is that it can literally be about anything.
<
p>
Now, it’s true that the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow citizen-initiated amendments about certain matters. (Read this and ask yourself how the anti-marriage measure passed muster, given that it would essentially overturn the SJC’s Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex marriage.) And it’s also true that a state amendment to bring back slavery would be overruled because it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.
<
p>
But the principle holds. In fact, it would be perfectly legal to amend the U.S. Constitution to reinstate slavery. No, my analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s not bad. So bear with me and assume, for the sake of this exercise, that a slavery amendment can be properly put before the Legislature, and that 55 or 60 legislators – more than 25 percent – have already announced their intention to vote in favor.
<
p>
What should a good, decent anti-slavery legislator do? Should he insist on a floor vote, in accordance with Article 48, and hope against hope that the amendment would fail to get 25 percent? Or should he do anything he could to kill the amendment, even if it means defying the Supreme Judicial Court and thus violating the Massachusetts Constitution?
<
p>
I would suggest that every responsible member of the Legislature would take whatever action was necessary to kill such an amendment, and not worry about the niceties of Article 48. And I would hope that Blue Mass Group, Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh and other process liberals would applaud.
<
p>
Now, if you think my analogy makes any sense, then you must conclude that the reason legislative defiance seems unwarranted in the case of the anti-gay-marriage amendment is that we do not take gay and lesbian equality as seriously as we do the rights of African-Americans. Thus, the matter before the Legislature today comes down to a moral judgment – i.e., which group we think is more deserving of our outraged indignation.
<
p>
Two other matters:
<
p>
First, several Media Nation commenters claim that referring to legislative defiance as “civil disobedience” bestows a grandeur that is undeserved, since there are no consequences anyone must pay for his or her refusal to vote. In fact, as the SJC pointed out, legislators can be voted out of office if their constituents don’t like what they’ve done. The fact that this rarely happens doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility. That’s how we hold people accountable in a representative democracy. We received a lesson in that recently, as the death of former president Gerald Ford occasioned a re-examination of his pardon of Richard Nixon, which almost surely cost Ford the election in 1976.
<
p>
Second, as Lehigh, Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby and others have correctly pointed out, the Legislature’s refusal to act on the anti-marriage amendment (and many other amendments over the years) amounts to a de facto repeal of Article 48. I suggest that the way to fix this is (yes) through a constitutional amendment. There is a deep flaw in a constitutional provision that forces the Legislature to act against a majority of its members’ wishes and to suspend its own rules and procedures – such as the right of any member to file a motion to go into recess.
<
p>
The 25 percent minimum should be eliminated and replaced with a simple majority requirement. That way, everyone would know the rules. And citizens would have a meaningful right to amend the constitution.
I thought you were referring to an earlier post that you had written on a similar topic.
<
p>
And thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt by calling me “disingenuous.” That’s what keeps things civil around here.
<
p>
Glad to see you think bloggers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Is that a New Year’s resolution?
that he was called more than that when he declined to agree with posters on here about GreaterBostongate.
<
p>
Dan’s beef seems to be more with Article 48 than anything else. And I agree. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t stink. It’s far too easy to force a vote on an amendment to the constitution, even a nefarious one. BUT…it’s the rule of law. If democracy means anything, doesn’t it mean adherence and fierce devotion to a system of checks and balances? And only through working within that system, bringing about change?
<
p>
Put another way, if you don’t like Article 48, bring your own petition.
My voting rights! My putative civil rights! Oh, my stars and garters!
<
p>
I disagree. “Accepting the penalty” would be graciously admitting defeat at the ballot box if the voters believe these tactics are to the level of travesty that some suggest.
you are fighting the hypo on the second question. You must presume that there are enough votes to move the Amendment to the popular ballot. Then would you support or oppose legislative tactics to kill the proposition?
<
p>
As far as consequences go, any legislator who fails to show or votes to adjourn will be subject to a federal lawsuit, any attorneys may have to face the bar for their actions and the next election will be faced in light of their actions. These are consequences. And in the interest of avoiding anarchy perhaps more than half of the legislature should not resign at the same time.
They may face a federal lawsuit, because Kris Mineau and Mitt Romney need to keep the machine going somehow, but there is no way the federal courts want to touch a state procedural issue like this unless there are flagrant violations of human rights.
….federal lawsuit for which you are individually named and must pay for your representation yourself is not a consequence? If you think that being hauled into court over something that has no chance of being won is not a consequence you have probably never been party to a suit. This could drag on for years if the filing party has enough steam and enough money (which I think we can all agree they do).
to defend themselves. What makes you think they will?
…and the Commonwealth is not a plaintiff. Ergo, the AG has no role.
<
p>
The theory was that they chose, as individuals, to cast what the SJC has termed an illegal vote to recess. So, as individuals they will defend themselves.
What a phrase! And what an umberella to fit under!
<
p>
Yes, I believe, along with Justices Marshall, Holmes and Warren, that the process by which we govern is just as important as the laws we use to govern by.
<
p>
Dan, what’s more important, that a criminal be tried, or that a criminal serve his sentence? What’s more important, that a property is searched, or a property is searched with a warrant? What’s more important, that a man confessed to a crime, or that he did so after being read his rights.
<
p>
Our entire society is predicated on a system of checks and balances. So please, retire the phrase “process liberal” before it gains any steam. Process is what makes out country great.
<
p>
I’ve read a lot of posts on this thread from some passionate gblt advocates. But, to be perfectly honest, their “ends justify the means” arguments are scaring the hell out of me.
<
p>
Process is important.
The process will fall by the wayside and the legislature will return to its old tricks, because there is no constitutional mechanism for enforcing the process, and the extra-constitutional mechanism of media attention and an ambitious governor will rarely be present to shine a light on what the legislature does.
<
p>
Process will win this battle, and not the war. Gay people and minority rights will lose the battle, and prolong the war. It’s not a balance sheet I like.
I’m a conservative,not a liberal, but its your distinction (or perhaps Elaine Issacson’s). When you make the distinction and call somebody a “process liberal”, what term do you use to describe the liberals excluded?
This is also posted at The Eisenthal Report –
<
p>
The Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be meeting again today jointly in a Constitutional Convention (ConCon). I have already stated my position that the ConCon should adjourn without taking action on the so-called “Marriage Amendment,” and that if it does not adjourn, it should vote not to place the Amendment on the November 2008 ballot. This is a civil rights issue – and such issues should not be subject to majority vote of the people. It is also important that like-minded legislators be afforded the use of any available parliamentary tools. The stakes are too high to refrain from such use based on concerns about process.
<
p>
People that I respect – and who feel as I do on the merits of the Marriage Amendment – feel that the ConCon should not adjourn without taking a vote. While I would normally defer to the legal reasoning of trained legal minds, it seems to me – a non-lawyer – that it is an inherent power of a legislature not to take action if that legislature deems it to be in the public interest. I think that it is a stretch to say – as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said – that Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution compels the ConCon to take an up or down vote on the merits of any amendment before it. Article 48 says that “final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays.” Legislative action can include adjournment. It seems to me that this language only compels the ConCon to take roll call votes – rather than the voice votes that are common in the Legislature’s routine business.
<
p>
I understand that adjournment would kill efforts to place a Health Care Amendment on the ballot. Unfortunately, it seems to me that safeguarding civil rights trumps such efforts as this.
What is unfortuante to me, is that the gay leadership fell into the right-wingers’ trap of fighting for marriage equality in the first place. It was and is the wrong priority for our community at a time when we can still be fired or denied housing in many states, 43 percent of homeless youth are lgbt, and trans folks face an unspeakable amount of violence and discrimination. It is the youth in schools and the gender variant folks who suffer the backlash of violence directed at lgbt people when gay marriage is all over the media and anti-gay campaigns are launched – and unfortunately our community has been spending a majority of its charitable dollars and strategy time on marriage not the youth, the trans folks, the people of color, the HIV positive, or forming coalitions to ensure universal health care, etc. It is a vicious cycle that we will be stuck in unless this amendment is shut down today by any means possible.
We have to deafeat it, and move on before our own community is divided so much by class and political priorities that it is not repairable.
Well said.
…on this thread, but that doesn’t make this a good argument.
<
p>
Remarkably, legislatures and rights groups are capable of fighting more than one fight at the same time. And if we weren’t fighting for marriage, and getting civil unions in many places, we wouldn’t even be taken seriously to fight on those other issues where the conservatives would instead choose to make a stand.
<
p>
There are even multiple gay interest groups, some fighting for marriage equality, and some fighting for the very issues the poster raised. Both have seen success, the latter more than the former.
the point about scarce resources is, I think, a good one, though your counter-point that anti-gay groups have had to devote resources to fighting the move toward marriage instead of fighting against employment discrimination legislation and the like is also a good one, and I don’t know how it all shakes out. So I’m content to defer to those with greater expertise.
<
p>
As for feeling beleaguered, though, I’ve heard all of these arguments before (as you know, we’ve been talking about this for some time). I’m no more beleaguered now than I’ve been all along!
<
p>
By the way, have you changed your mind?
I support the arguments made in principle, but only if they were consistently applied, and I see no hope or prospect of that happening. I’m cynical about the political process and how the majority can be whipped up against the minority by bad logic, and I disapprove of initatives and referenda in general. So I believe the ConCon would be wrong to adjourn, but no more or less wrong than they have been in the past and will be again in the future, so I can’t bring myself to want them to do the right thing at the time it would have the worst consequences and no lasting benefit for the process,
<
p>
It’s like what I said about “driving while Black” up above. Laws are not a bad thing, and should be observed, but inconsistent enforcement of such laws is a tool for discrimination that has always been used against disliked minorities.
Brittain333, I think you have hit on a very important theme. It applies to immigration as well, by the way.
<
p>
We have laws and practices. Our practices don’t always match the laws. (Do you follow the speed limit? If so, I’m glad I’m not behind you.) The discrepancy undermines democracy which fundamentally rests on laws. That said, in some cases, practice is better than the law; in other cases, it is worse. There is no obvious rule progressives can apply in all cases.
<
p>
Thank you for your comments: this is an area I wonder about.
Will he make a list available of the laws he likes and plans to enforce, not icky ones like citizen petitions and immigration?
<
p>
It would be so handy to have a guideline, so I can know which laws will be worthless in his administration.
We appear to have a number of laws we don’t enforce. People regard changing past practice as unfair — even if it means bringing something into conformity with the law.
<
p>
I’m also reminded of all those example sentences in Ancient Greek 101 which have heavy doses of noble men following the law.
<
p>
I don’t think we were discussing anything about how Deval Patrick plans to govern.
…many of the folks who have been fighting tirelessly for the rights of lgbt youth would take umbrage. The fact that the media and the opposition help to whip the marriage issue into a firestorm that tends at times to overshadow other lgbt issues is not the fault of those fighting for equal marriage. Further, those same young people you claim are being ignored will benefit greatly from knowing that when they grow up their relationships will be treating with equality and respect by the law. My own gay youth would have been a lot easier if I had known I could look forward to marriage one day. These issues are not mutually exclusive and to treat them as such is what I find truly unfortunate.
Did anyone see that lovely letter in this morning’s Globe about how we fought WWII so that a future veteran could defend his marriage to his “real wife”? I have to hope they ran that letter so that the legislators would get a glimpse–or a reminder–of the kind of elevated discussion and principled debate we’ll be opening ourselves up to for the next two years.
<
p>
Yeah, I loved hearing stuff like that when I was 13 and not out to a soul.
You are ignoring the fact that often times the gay-marriage leaders frame issues and respond to issues only in terms of marriage. When a hate crime occurs for example, the gay marriage folks will respond right away framing it to argue for marriage. That framing and messaging has been bad for our community at large and played a role in pushing other issues to the back burner. A speaker at a forum on marriage a few years ago said that a “rising tide lifts all ships” when I asked him about what we could do about the problem of lgbt youth suicide rates rising every year since 1999. I have heard other marriage leaders say that once marriage is secure they will come back and fight for the yoth and trans folks. Yeah right. Your post seems to make the same argument, that the rising tide of winning marriage lifts all ships. Well it does not. The other ships are sinking like the titanic.
The prioritization of gay marriage, the focus, has definately hurt other efforts. And the pr machine including red-white-and blue extreme at times fake patriotism, and mantras like “we’re just like you” have hurt us as well because there are many of us who are proud of who we are – different or not. Ask any leader in any small non-profit that serves lgbt youth, lgbt elderly, hiv+, etc. or any queer thoerist such as Micahel Bronski, Uravashi Vaid, and they will tell you how the prioritization of marriage and the rise of the mainstraem single issue gay rights movement has hurt their/our efforts. Of course many of them can not speak of this in public because of the power of the marriage organizations that they now rely on. In the past few years lgbt youth work in particular has lost ground in our state. Imagine the suffering that could have been reduced if our community rallied around our youth in the past few years instead of marriage. Imagine if the millions of dollars we spent in all those states fighting anti-gay marriage ballots was spent on making schools safer, or fighting simply for better anti-discriminatino laws. Instead we were busy spending millions of dollars convincing straight people we are normal, losing most of the battles along the way – all the while marginalizing the most marginalized of our community. Our community would be better served if the large organizations like massequality, hrc, and ngltf focussed their efforts on protecting our youth and trans folks, and forming coalitions with health care organizations to work on fightinf for universal health coverage so that all our families including and especially those that do not have a 2 parent and children model could be protected. I could go on all day about the different ways the marriage movement, and the cultural shift in our community that emphasises our “normalcy” has hurt youth, efforts to slow the spread of HIV, etc. etc. I suggest that you explore my thoughts by checking out the writings of people who identify as queer such as Michael Bronski because he can articulate it much better than me.
In principle of course I still beleive in affording lgbt people the right to marry! And in the future my ideal version of government would not marry any couples at all but every type of family could somehow have the rights and privelages that used to accompany marriage. It’s just too bad the marriage thing takes so much of our small community’s resources in order to be won. Even many of the marriage folks themsevles will tell you that they have put other issues on the back burner for now.
…will say that having a very our front lgbt issue on a regular basis makes it possible to have other discussions that would otherwise be difficult to start. I respect your passion and your point of view but I disagree in principle and in practice. Struggling for civil rights is a messy process and time is better served speaking out for what you feel is important and not deriding other efforts in the process. Enough of that comes from outside both efforts. You can fight for lgbt youth without blaming marriage for making the fight harder. Finding funding and popular support for these issues has always been difficult and time wasted on scapegoats is time not spent furthering your cause.
Trust me I spend most of my time actually fighting for youth and trans folks, and very little time blaming. That said I have the work/intern/life experience, personal relationships, queer theorists, and stastical evidence to back up my opinions about the detrimental affects of the gay marriage focus in the lgbt community – and there is nothing wrong with spouting off my opinions on the issue on a blog – a place meant for such discussion and brainstorming.
“It serves no public interest to focus more time and attention on this issue when there are under-served and under-performing schools, an infrastructure showing signs of sustained neglect, gun and gang violence on the rise, jobs and people leaving the state, a growing homeless population, soaring health care costs, a looming deficit and a score of other serious challenges crying out for the attention and the creativity of the government and the people. ” – Deval Patrick
I would like to see your statistics. Always eager to learn something.
<
p>
Of course there is nothing wrong with your participation or reasonable debate around anything you propose.
The massachusetts youth risk behavior survey (conducted every 2 years), the only state funded survey in the country to ask questions about sex/sexual orientation among students, shows that suicide attemps and violence directed at LGB (no stats available for trans youth) went from 3 times more likely to attempt suicide, to 4, to over 5 times consecutively. Recently there has been some good news that that is slowly starting to go back down again. The survey also showed that in schools with active gay straight alliances the suicide statistics of lgbt youth dropped to the average rate of all students. Unfortunately in the past few years as the lgbt community has been focussed on marriage youth organizations like bagly have struggled financially. Also, the governo’s commission on lgbt youth was abolished, under attack, reestablished differently etc…. the safe schools program was abolished not long ago too… and now there are just small struggling nonprofits doing the work in schools – our local pflag chapter, and glsen to some degree. Homelessness continues to rise among LGBT youth (43% of homeless youth identify as LGBT) causing NGLTF to recently declare it an “epidemic” while at the same time HRC and they, are spending most of their time and money fighting anti-gay marriage initiatives. Violent murders of trans folks have risen in recent years too – but there are not many official statistics for that – only the lists of names that can be found on the day of silence web site. I can’t help but wonder if the “we are just like you” mantra deployed by the marriage movment played a small part in that spike in violence against those who will never be able to present themselves as “just like you.”
I could say a lot more, but I’m crunched for time…
If we lose today MassEquality should take steps to:
1. Create a well publicized hotline for people to report anti-gay violence
2. Encourage their donors to send a little dough in the direction of organizations that serve the populations who will be the targets of such violence – youth, trans, etc. or create a fund to divy out money themselves.
—>Doesn’t this closely parallell the friction between the Process People and the At Any Cost People within the larger progressive movement? What is the difference between marriage proponents making things more difficult for trans/youth groups to fulfill their missions, and the insistence on process (ostensibly to protect the greater good of the progressive movement) creating difficulies for marriage equality?
<
p>
It can’t be “because marriage is a civil right,” because then you deny the civil rights mantle to the trans/youth/safe schools/etc groups.
<
p>
—>Shane
Do the ballot questions have to be addressed in a particular pre-determined order? I would imagine they would already have done so if they could have, but could the Legislature have voted to move the same-sex marriage question to the end of the session so as to address the Healthcare question first?
They could have switched. However, rules require a unanimous vote to do so. Hardy har.
2? 44? NECN? Any of the slew of new over-the-air digital channels? I see nothing in the papers or Boston.com concerning coverage this time around.
…after that, we can rely on webcasts ‘enhanced’ by HIS and the Glob. >:~(
… over at the ‘GBH website.
<
p>
And there is definitely NOT a webcast link as promised at the General Court site.
<
p>
BLEAH!
Our perceptions will be shaped and shaded by those able to atend, and those able to write about it.
<
p>
Soon, the Lege will be able to justify our not being able to make up our own minds, as there will be no objective record.
Sometime after 1pm, the webcast link was provided at the General Court site.
<
p>
Finally.
The number one issue here today is supporting the ability of citizen’s of Massachusetts to be able to amend the constitution. this is not about allowing a terrible amendment to go to the ballot, or about supporting some other amendment that is good: that trade off, one awful bill to take away rights of citizens in return for a few bills that would add some rights that have merit, is not justifiable. protecting existing rights always is much more urgent than pushing forward for additional rights. that said, they should take the amendments scheduled to a vote this time, but if we’re wrong that there are more anti-marriage legislators than we believe, I will be resigned to support killing this amendment by any means necessary in the next session, and I’m sure if 10 of them flip to allow the vote and see it pass by much more the 55 expected, they will also know that defying the constitution in the next session may turn out to be unavoidable, and carry out the nuclear option in January 2009 to stop this from going to ballot anytime before 2014 (which by then I’m sure we will have a healthy 3/4th majority to stop it).
<
p>
This is an awful bill, and between the fraud in gathering signatures and the fact it directly addresses reversing a court decision, Tom Reilly and Bill Galvin were way out of line in letting it get this far instead of doing their duty to carry out the law.
I think it is time to start a petition drive to change Article 48. With just a simple change it can cause everything to a have a real vote. Simply change it to have any amendment to the constitution require a simple majority vote in 2 consecutive Constititutional Conventions. I think the current process with needing only 25% is too easy once you have gone through the signature gathering process. That is why the only way to really kill the Gay Marriage Amendment is through procedure and not a vote.
i think article 48’s 25% rule is essential: it protects the rights of minority voices in the process. Perhaps upping the signature barrier would be a good idea, but only if the law is fixed so that the “final action” language actually has teeth. Though this should only happen once the anti-marriage amendment is safely dead.
CRIMINY!
<
p>
It contains poison pill verbiage that PRECLUDES changing it!
<
p>
HOW can you have an opinion when you don’t read the source document?
Okay, thanks for not-so-friendly reminder. I actually had looked through it briefly once before, but not very carefully as I’m not all that interested in the issue, I’m more concerned with supporting equal marriage by appropriate and legal means, and support the spirit of the language in the Constitution and the protection of democracy. Anyway, I’ve taken a look at it now. Were you referring to this language:
<
p>
<
p>
As far as I can tell from reading, there is no restriction on a Legislative amendment to change it, as clearly changes have been made. And also, looking through briefly, it seems the legislature sets the number of signatures itself, so my point was moot. I’m not a lawyer, nor really have the time or desire (or energy, I’m home with a cold for the 4th day in a row) to read the whole thing in detail, but this is my impression of the article. I recognize it’s very limited, but it’s better than some have shown. And I find it very strange that you attacked me in this way when I’ve been one of the few here who opposes your anti-marriage opinion but has supported a commitment to the democratic process.
…the one thing expressly prohibited.
<
p>
How nice for you all that you can just support things by holding a sign and singing, and not have to read the actual rules and regulations of the game. Yes, our ImPRESSIONS are what’s important now, in the Deval Devotee Era, not the protection, letter or interpretation of the law.
<
p>
If conservatives talked like this, you’d shriek ‘Fascist!’
I see, you’re criticizing me for what cmfrost said! He suggested a petition drive to change it from 25% to 50%, and I disagreed that this would be a good result to push for. I didn’t pay enough attention to how he had planned to accomplish it and didn’t make the connection that the method was impossible to do, but I was arguing that the result was not something positive, so whether the route to get there was possible or not was relevant.
<
p>
If you are criticizing the “by any means possible” crowd, please don’t address those posts to me, as I believe the legislature will be far overstepping the bounds of responsible government. If progressives embrace this tactic, it leaves us seeming hypocritical for attacking similar Republican actions. But you’ve been doing a pretty good job of pushing me towards apathy on this considering the consequences.